# THE STATE OF PUNJAB v. GURMIT SINGH ANR ORS - **Citation:** [1996] 1 S.C.R. 532 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1996-01-16 - **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 616 B c of 1985 - **Bench:** Dr. A.S. Anand, S. Saghir Ahmad - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/the-state-of-punjab-v-gurmit-singh-anr-ors-13870 - **Pages:** 25 ## Headnote Indian Penal Code 1860---Sections 363, 366, 368 and 376-Abduction, Wrongful confinement aiul rape of a minor girl-Acquittal by Trial Court disbelieving the prosecutrix and discarding medical evidence--Held- Prosecutrix reliable and truthful witness-corroboration by medical evidence and chemical examination report though no such corroboration is necessary to rely upon the testimony of the prosecutrix. Criminal Procedure Code 1973--Section 154-Delay in.filing FIR-Time spent to secure justice through village panchayats and consultations between D the.family members-Held, generally a complaint is lodged in a sexual offence after a cool thought since the incidence concerns the reputation ~f the victim and honour of her .family-Therefore delay is justified. E Criminal Procedure Code 1973--Sections 327 (2) and (3)--Sexual o.ffences--/n camera trial should be the rule and open court trial an exception. According to the prosecution, the Prosecutrix aged around 15 years, was going to her uncle's home after giving her matriculation examination and was abducted by the respondents. They took her to a tubewell kotha and made her drink liquor ignoring her protest, telling her that it was only F fruit juice. Thereafter all the three respondents had sexual intercourse with her without her consent and against her will. Next day, in the mo ruing the prosecutrix was dropped by the respondents at the same place from where she was abducted. The prosecutrix after giving her examination on that day returned to her house and told P. W. 7 (Mother) her traumatic G experience. P.W. 6 (Father) learnt about it through P.W. 7. A compromise was tried through the Sarpanch of his village and the Sarpanch of the village where the Respondents were living. When compromise talks failed, P.W. 6 and the prosecutrix filed an FIR. The prosecutrix was sent for medical examination. All the three respondents were arrested. H The trial court acquitted all the respondents disbelieving the evi532 • ' , STATE v. GURMIT SINGH 533 dence of prosecutrix on the ground that she was not a reliable witness and A was attempting to shield her own conduct by indulging in falsehood to implicate the respondents. The trial court was of the opinion that it was a false case and that the accused had been implicated on account of enmity. Hence this appeal. Allowing the appeal, this Court B HELD : 1. The prosecutrix has made a truthful statement and the prosecution has established the case against the respondents beyond every reasonable doubt. The trial court fell in error in acquitting them. The appreciation of evidence by the trial court is not only unreasonable but C perverse. [552-B) 2. Even though no corroboration is necessary to rely upon the testimony of the prosecutrix, yet sufficient corroboration from the medical evidence and the chemical examination report is available on the record. Her statement has been fully supported by the evidence of her father D (p.w.6) and her mother (p.w.7). The unchallenged fact that it was the prosecutrix who had led the investigating officer to the Kotha of the tubewell where she had been raped, lent a built-in-assurance that the charge levelled by her was "genuine" rather than "fabricated" because it is no one's case that she knew the first respondent earlier or that she E had ever seen or visited the Kotha at his tubewell. [547-D-F) ' 3. Delay in lodging FIR in sexual offences can be due to variety of > reasons particularly the recluctance of the prosecutrix or her family members to go to the police and complain about the incident which concerns the reputation of the prosecutrix and the honour of the family. It is only after giving it a cool thought that a complaint of sexual offence is generally lodged. [543-A-B) F 4. If the investigating officer did not conduct the investigation properly or was negligent in not being able to trace out the driver of the car, that can not become a ground to discredit the testimony of the prosecutrix. The prosecntrix ## Text _Characters 0–39,888 of 64,596. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39888 for what follows._ A B c THE STATE OF PUNJAB v. GURMIT SINGH ANR ORS. JANUARY 16, 1996 [DR. A.S. ANAND AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.] Indian Penal Code 1860---Sections 363, 366, 368 and 376-Abduction, Wrongful confinement aiul rape of a minor girl-Acquittal by Trial Court disbelieving the prosecutrix and discarding medical evidence--Held- Prosecutrix reliable and truthful witness-corroboration by medical evidence and chemical examination report though no such corroboration is necessary to rely upon the testimony of the prosecutrix. Criminal Procedure Code 1973--Section 154-Delay in.filing FIR-Time spent to secure justice through village panchayats and consultations between D the.family members-Held, generally a complaint is lodged in a sexual offence after a cool thought since the incidence concerns the reputation ~f the victim and honour of her .family-Therefore delay is justified. E Criminal Procedure Code 1973--Sections 327 (2) and (3)--Sexual o.ffences--/n camera trial should be the rule and open court trial an exception. According to the prosecution, the Prosecutrix aged around 15 years, was going to her uncle's home after giving her matriculation examination and was abducted by the respondents. They took her to a tubewell kotha and made her drink liquor ignoring her protest, telling her that it was only F fruit juice. Thereafter all the three respondents had sexual intercourse with her without her consent and against her will. Next day, in the mo ruing the prosecutrix was dropped by the respondents at the same place from where she was abducted. The prosecutrix after giving her examination on that day returned to her house and told P. W. 7 (Mother) her traumatic G experience. P.W. 6 (Father) learnt about it through P.W. 7. A compromise was tried through the Sarpanch of his village and the Sarpanch of the village where the Respondents were living. When compromise talks failed, P.W. 6 and the prosecutrix filed an FIR. The prosecutrix was sent for medical examination. All the three respondents were arrested. H The trial court acquitted all the respondents disbelieving the evi532 • ' , STATE v. GURMIT SINGH 533 dence of prosecutrix on the ground that she was not a reliable witness and A was attempting to shield her own conduct by indulging in falsehood to implicate the respondents. The trial court was of the opinion that it was a false case and that the accused had been implicated on account of enmity. Hence this appeal. Allowing the appeal, this Court B HELD : 1. The prosecutrix has made a truthful statement and the prosecution has established the case against the respondents beyond every reasonable doubt. The trial court fell in error in acquitting them. The appreciation of evidence by the trial court is not only unreasonable but C perverse. [552-B) 2. Even though no corroboration is necessary to rely upon the testimony of the prosecutrix, yet sufficient corroboration from the medical evidence and the chemical examination report is available on the record. Her statement has been fully supported by the evidence of her father D (p.w.6) and her mother (p.w.7). The unchallenged fact that it was the prosecutrix who had led the investigating officer to the Kotha of the tubewell where she had been raped, lent a built-in-assurance that the charge levelled by her was "genuine" rather than "fabricated" because it is no one's case that she knew the first respondent earlier or that she E had ever seen or visited the Kotha at his tubewell. [547-D-F) ' 3. Delay in lodging FIR in sexual offences can be due to variety of > reasons particularly the recluctance of the prosecutrix or her family members to go to the police and complain about the incident which concerns the reputation of the prosecutrix and the honour of the family. It is only after giving it a cool thought that a complaint of sexual offence is generally lodged. [543-A-B) F 4. If the investigating officer did not conduct the investigation properly or was negligent in not being able to trace out the driver of the car, that can not become a ground to discredit the testimony of the prosecutrix. The prosecntrix had no control over the investigating agency and the negligence of the investigating officer would not affect the credibility of the statement of the prosecutrix. [542-F-G) G 5. There is evidence on record to establish that on the date of the H 534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] l S.C.R. A occurrence, the prosecutrix was below 16 years of age. The prosecutrix herself and her parents deposed at the trial that her age was less than 16 years on the date of occurrence. Their evidence was suppOT!ed by the birth certificate Ex. P.J. Both PW. 6 and PW. 7, the father and mother of the prosecutrix respectively, explained that they had changed their B daughter's name as according to the Holy Guru Granth Sahib her name was required to start with the word "Chhachha" and in the school leaving certificate her name was correctly given. There·is nothing to disbelieve the explanation given by these witnesses in that behalf. [550-C-E] 6. There is no proof of the existence of any enmity between the C parties as alleged by the respondent to falsely implicate him on a charge of rape. Even if it be assumed for the sake of argument that there was some litigation, it could hardly be a ground for a father to put forth his ·daughter to make a wild allegation of rape against the son of the opposite party, with a view to take revenge. It defies human probabilities. No D father conld stoop so low as to bring forth a false charge of rape on his nnmarried minor daughter with a view to take revenge on account of some pending civil litigation. Again, if the accused could be falsely involved on account of that enmity, it was equally possible that the accused could have sexually assaulted the prosecutrix to take revenge for E F G after all, enmity is a double edged weapon, which may be used for false implication as well as to take revenge. [549-A-C] 7.1. In view of the above, the judgment of the Trial Court is set aside and all the respondents are convicted for offence~ punishable under Sections 363, 366, 368 and 376 IPC. [552-C] 7.2. So far as the sentence is concerned, the court has to strike a just balance. In this case, the occurrence took place on 30.3.1984 (more than 11 years ago). The respondents were aged between 21-24 years of age at the time when the offence was committed. All the respondents as well as the prosecutrix must have by now got married and settled down in life, which needs to be taken into consideration while imposing alJ appropriate sentence on the respondents. For the offence under Section 376 IPC each of the respondent~ are sentenced to undergo five years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo 1 year RI each. For the offence under Section 363 IPC they are sentenced H to under go three years RI each but no separate sentence for the offence ' ' ' ' x- ' > • STATE "· GURMIT SINGH 535 under Sections 366/368 IPC is imposed. The substantive sentences of A imprisonment shall, however, run concurrently. [552-C-F] 8. The evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands almost at par with the evidence of an injured witness and to an extent is even more reliable. Corroborative evidence is not an imperative component of judicial credence in every case of rape. Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances. A woman or a girl subjected to sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another person's lust and it is improper and undesirable to test her evidence with any· amount of suspicion, treating her as if she were an accomplice. Inferences have to be drawn from a given set of facts and circumstances with realistic diversity and not dead uniformity lest that type of rigidity in the shape of rule of law, is introduced through a new form of testimonial tyranny making B c justice a casualty. [544-H; 545-B-D] D State of Maharastra v. Chandra Prakash Kewalchand Jain, [1990] 1 sec 550, relied on. 9. The courts are expected to use self-restraint while recording E findings in cases which have larger repercussions so far as the future of the victim of a sex crime is concerned and even wider implications on the society as a whole where the victim of crime is discouraged, the criminal encouraged and in turn crime gets rewarded. No stigma, like the one, as cast in the present case, should be cast against the prosecutrix by the courts, for after all it is the accused and not the victim of sex crime who is on trial in the court. [551-F-G; 552-A] 10. Provisions under Sections 327 (2) and (3) of Cr. P.C. are in the nature of exception to the general rule of an open trial. They cast a duty F on the court to conduct the trial of rape cases etc. invariably ''in camera''. G The courts should, as far as possible, avoid disclosing the name of the prosecutrix in their orders to save further embarrassment to the victim of sex crime. The anonymity of the-l"ictims of the crime must be maintained as far as possible throughout. Trial of rape cases in camera should be the rule and open trial in such cases an exception. [555-A, C, G-H; 556-B] H 536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 1 S.C.R. A CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 616 B c of 1985. From the Judgment and Order dated 1.6.85 of the Additional Judge, Special Court Ludhiana in Sessions Case No. 69151 of 1984 & Trial No. 56 of 1985. Ms. Arnita Gupta, R.S. Suri and R.L. Deo for the Appellant. Ujagar Singh, Davender Verma and Ms. Naresh Bakshi for the Respondent Nos. 1-2. C.S. Ashri for the Respondent No. 3. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ANAND, J. This appeal under Section 14 of the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1984 is directed against the judgment and order of Additional Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana dated 1.6.1985 by which the D respondents were acquitted of the charge of abduction and rape. For what follows, the judgment impugned in this appeal, presents a rather disquietening and a disturbing feature. It demonstrates lack of sensitivity on the part of the court by casting unjustified stigmas on a prosecutrix aged below 16 years in a rape case, by overlooking human psychology and behavioural probabilities. An intrinsically wrong approach while appreciating the testimonial potency E of the evidence of the prosecutrix has resulted in miscarriage of justice. First a brief reference to the prosecution case : The prosecutrix (narue withheld by us), a young girl below 16 years of age, was studying in the 10th class at the relevant time in Government High School, Pakhowal. The matriculation examinations were going on at F the material time. The examination centre of the prosecutrix was located in t.he Boys High School, Pakhowal. On 30th March, 1984 at about 12.30. p.m. after taking her test in Geography, the prosecutrix was going to the house of her maternal uncle, Darshan Singh, and when she had covered a distance of about 100 karmas from the school a blue ambassador car being driven by G a sikh youth aged 20/25 years came from behind. In that car Gurmit Singh, Jagjit Singh @ Bawa and Ranjit Singh accused were sitting. The car stopped near her. Ranjit Singh accused carue out of the car and caught hold of the prosecutrix from her arm and pushed her inside the car. Accused Jagjit Singh @ Bawa put his hand on t~e mouth of the'prosecutrix while Gurmit Singh accused threatened the prosecutrix, that in case she raised an alarm she H would be done to death. All the three accused respondents herein drove her ) • ... , STATE v. GURMIT SINGH [DR. ANAND, J] 537 to the tubewell of Ranjit Singh accused. She was taken to the 'kotha' of the A Tubewell. The driver of the car after leaving the prosecutrix and the three accused persons there went away with the car. In the said kotha Gurmit Singh compelled the prosecutrix to take liquor, misrepresenting to her that it was i.uice. Her refusal did not have any effect and she reluctantly consumed liquor. Gurmit Singh then got removed her salwar and also opened her shirt. B She was made to lie on a cot in the kotha while his companions guarded the kotha from outside. Gurmit Singh cominitted rape upon her. She raised roula as she was suffering pain but Gurmit Singh threatened to kill her if she persisted in raising alarm. Due to that threat, she kept quiet. After Gurmit Singh had committed rape upon her, the other two accused, who were earlier guarding the kotha from outside, came in one by one, and committed rape upon her. Jagjit Singh alias Bawa committed rape on her after Gurmit Singh and thereafter Ranjit Singh committed rape on her. Each one of the accused committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix forcibly and against her c will. They all subjec:ed her to sexual intercourse once again during the night against her will. Next morning at about 6.00 a.m., the same car arrived at D the tubewell kotha of Ranjit Singh and the three accused made her to sit in that car and left her near the Boys High School, Pakhowal near about the place from where she had been abducted. The prosecutrix had to take her examination in the subject of Hygiene on that date. She, after taking her examination in Hygiene, reached her village Nangal-kalan, at about noon E time and narrated the entire story to her mother, Smt. Gurdev Kaur, PW 7. Her father Trilok Singh PW 6 was not present in the house at that time. He returned from his work late in the evening. The mother of the prosecutrix, Smt. Gurdev Kaur PW 7, narrated the episode to her husband Trilok Singh PW 6 on his arrival. Her father straightaway contacted Sarpanch Joginder F Singh of the village. A panchayat was convened. Matter was brought to the notice of the Sarpanch of village Pakhowal also. Both the Sarpanches, tried to effect a compromise on 1.4.1984 but since the panchayat could not give any justice or relief to the prosecutrix, she alongwith her falher proceeded to the police station Raikot to lodge a report about the occurrence with the police. When they reached at the bus adda of village Pakhowal, the police met them and she made her statement, Ex. PD, before AS! Raghubir Chand PW who made an endorsement, Ex. PD/I and sent the statement Ex. PD of the prosecutrix to the police station Raikot for registration of the case on the G basis of which formal FIR Ex. PD/2 was registered by SI Malkiat Singh. AS! Raghubir Chand then took the prosecutrix and her mother to the primary H A B c D E F G H 538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] l S.C.R. health centre Pakhowal for medical examination of the prosccutrix. She was medically examined by lady doctor Dr. Sukhwinder Kaur, PW 1 on 2.4.84, who found that the hymen of the prosecutrix was lacerated with fine rediate tears, swollen and painful. Her pubic hair were also found mated. According to PW! intercourse with the prosecutrix could be "one of the reasons for laceration which I found in her hymen". She went on to say that the possibility could not be ruled out that the prosecutrix "was not habitual to intercourse earlier." During the course of investigation, the police took into possession a sealed parcel handed over by the lady doctor containing the salwar of the prosecutrix alongwith 5 slides of vaginal smears and one sealed phial containing pubic hair of the prosecutrix, vide memo Ex. PK. On the pointing out of the prosecutrix, the investigating officer prepared the rough site plan Ex. PF, of the place from where she had been abducted. The prosecutrix also had led the investigating officer to the tubewell kotha of Ranjit Singh where she had been wrongfully confined and raped. The investigating officer prepared a rough site plan of the Kotha Ex. PM. A search was made for the accused on 2.4.1984 but they were not found. They were also not traceable on 3.4.1984, inspite of a raid being conducted at their houses by the ASL On 5.4.1984 Jagjit Singh alias Bawa and Ranjit Singh were produced before the investigating officer by Gurbachan Singh PW 8 and were placed under arrest. Both Ranjit Singh and Jagjit Singh on the same day were produced before Dr. B.L. Bansal PW 3 for medical examination. The doctor opined that both the accused were fit to perform sexual intercourse. Gurmit Singh respondent was arrested on 9.4.1984 by SI Malkiat Singh. He was also got medically examined on 9.4.1984 from Dr. B.L. Bansal PW 3 who opined that Gurmit Singh was also fit to perform sexual intercourse. The sealed parcels containing the slides of vaginal smears, the pubic hair and the salwar of the prosecutrix, were sent to the chemical examiner. The report of the chemical examiner revealed that semen was found on the slides of vagnial smear though no spermatozoa was found either on the pubic hair or the salwar of the prosecutrix. On completion of the investigation, respondents were challaned and were charged for offences under Sections 363,366, 368 and 376 !PC. With a view to connect the respondents with the crime, the prosecution examined Dr. Sukhwinder Kaur, PW!; prosecutrix, PW 2; Dr. B.L. Bansal, PW 3; Tirlok Singh, father of the prosecutrix, PW 6; Gurdev Kaur, mother of the prosecutrix, PW 7; Gurbachan Singh, PW 8; Malkit Singh, PW 9 and 1 • , , STATE v. GURMIT SINGH [DR. ANAND, J.] 539 SI Raghubir Chand PW 10, besides, some formal witnesses like the A draftsman etc. The prosecution tendered in evidence affidavits of some of the constables, whose evidence was of a formal nature as also the report of the chemical examiner, Ex. PM. In their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. the respondents denied the prosecution allegations against them. Jagjit Singh respondent stated that it was a false case foisted on him on B account of his enmity with the Sarpanch of village Pakhowal. He stated that he had married a Canadian girl in· the village Gurdwara, which was not liked to by the sarpanch and therefore the sarpanch was hostile to him and had got him falsely implicated in this case. Gurmit Singh - respondent took the stand that he had been falsely implicated in the case on account of enmity between his father and Trilok Singh, PW6, father of the prosecutrix. He stated that there was long standing -litigation going on between his father and the father c of the prosecutrix and their family members were not even on speaking terms with each other. He went on to add that on 1.4.1984 he was given beating by Tirlok Singh, PW 6, on grounds of suspicion that he might have instigated some persons to abduct his daughter and in retaliation he and his D elder brother on the next day had given beating to Trilok Singh, PW 6 and also abused him and on that account Trilok Singh PW 6, in consultation with the police had got him falsely implicated in the case. Ranjit Singh respondent also alleged false implication but gave no reasons for having been falsely implicated. Jagjit Singh alias Bawa produced DW-1 Kuldip Singh and DWE 2 MHC, Amarjit Singh in defence and tendered in evidence Ex. DC, a photostat copy of his passport and Ex. DD copy of a certificate of his marriage with the Canadian girl. He also tendered into evidence photographs marked 'C' and 'D', evidencing his marriage with the Canadian girl. The other two accused however did not lead any defence evidence. The trial court .first dealt with the prosecution case relating to the. abduction of the prosecutrix by the respondents and observed : "The first point for appreciation before me would arise whether this part of the prosecution story stands fortified by any cogent or reliable evidence or not. There is a bald allegation only of (prosecutrix-name omitted) that she was forcibly abducted in a car. In the F.LR. she stated that she was abducted in an Ambassador Car of blue colour. After going through the evidence, I am of the view that this thing F G has been introduced by the prosecutrix or by her father or by the thanedar just to give the gravity of offence. (Prosecutrix name H 540 A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 1 S.C.R. omitted) was tested about the particulars of the car and she is so ignorant about the make etc. of the car that entire story that she was abducted in the car becomes doubtful. She stated in her crossexarnination at page No. 8 that the make of the car was Master. She was pertinently asked whether the make of the car was Ambassador or Fiat. The witness replied that she cannot tell the "make of the car. But when she was asked as to the difference between Fiat, Ambassador or Master car, she was unable to explain the difference among these vehicles. So, it appears that the allegations that she was abducted in a Fiat Car by all the three accused and the driver, is an imaginary story which has been given either by the thanedar or by the father of the prosecutrix." "If the three known accused are in the clutches of the police, it is not difficult for the LO. to come to know about the car, the name of its driver etc., but strange enough, SI Raghbir Chand had shown pitiable negligence when he could not find out the car driver inspite of the fact that he directed the investigation on these lines. He had to admit that he made search for taking the car into possession allegedly used in the occurrence. He could not find out the name of the driver nor could he find out which car was used. In these circumstances, it looks to be improbable that any car was also used in the alleged abduction". (Omission of name of the prosecutrix - ours) The trial Court further commented : "On 30th March, 1984 she was forcibly abducted by four desperate persons who were out and out to molest her honour. It has been admitted by the prosecutrix that she was taken through the bus adda of Pakhowal via metalled road. It has come in the evidence that it is a busy centre. Inspire of that fact she has not raised any alrarn, so as to attract persons that she was being forcibly taken. The height of her own unnatural conduct is that she was left by the accused at the same point on the next morning. The accused would be the last person to extend sympathy to the prosecutrix. Had it been so, the natural conduct of the prosecutrix was first to rush to the house of her maternal uncle to apprise him that she had been forcibly , • 1 • STATE v. GURMIT SINGH [DR. ANAND, J.] 541 abducted on the previous day. The witness after her being left at the place of abduction lightly takes her examination. She does not complain to the lady teachers who were deployed to keep a watch on the girl students because these students are to appear in the centre of Boys School. She does not complain to anybody nor her friend that she was raped during the previous night. She prefers her examination rather than to go to the house of her parents or relations. Thereafter, she goes to her village Mangat Kalan and informs for the first time her mother that she was raped on the previous night. This part of the prosecution story does not look to be probable." A B The trial court, thus, disbelieved the version of the prosecutrix C basically for the reasons; (i) "She is to ignorant about the make etc. of the car that entire story that she. was abducted in the car becomes doubtful" particularly because she could not explain the difference between a Fiat car, Ambassador car or a Master car; (ii) the investigating officer had "shown pitiable negligence" during the investigation by not tracing out the car and the driver; (iii) that the prosecutrix did not raise any alarm while being abducted even though she had passed through the bus adda of village pakhowal (iv) that the story of abduction "has been introduced by the prosecutrix or by her father or by the thanedar just to give the gravity of offence" and (v) ihat no corroboration of the statement of the prosecutrix was available on the record and that the story that the accused had left her near the school next morning was not believable because the accused could have no "sympathy" for her . The trial court also disbelieved the version of the prosecutrix regarding D E rape. It found that the testimony of the prosecutrix did not inspire confidence F for the reasons (i) that there had been delay in lodging the FIR and as such the chances of false implication of the accused could not be ruled out. According to the trial court Trilok Singh PW 6 became certain on 1.4.84 that there was no outcome of the meeting between the panchayats Nangalkhurd and Pakhowal therefore the was no justification for him not to have lodged the report on 1.4.84 itself and since Trilok Singh had "entered into consultations with his wife as to whether to lodge the report or not, it rendered the matter doubtful." (ii) that the medical evidence did not help the prosecution case. The trial court observed that in her cross-examination PW I lady doctor had admitted that whereas inter-course with the prosecutrix could be one of the reasons for the laceration of the hymen "there could be G H 542 SUPREME COUl{T REPORTS [1996] l S.C.R. A other reasons also for that laceration''. The trial court noticed that the lady doctor had inserted a vaginal speculum for laking swabs from the posterior vaginal fornix of the prosecutrix for preparing slides and since the width of the speculum was about two fingers, the possibility that the prosecutrix was habituated to sexual inter-course could not be ruled out". The trial court B c D E F G observed that the prosecutrix was "flighting her imagination in order to rope in the accused persons" and that implicit reliance could not be placed on the testimony "of such a girl"; (iii) there was no independent corroboration of her testimony and (iv) that the accused had been implicated on account of enmity as alleged by the accused in their statements recorded under Section 31'.i Cr. P.C. The grounds on which the trial court disbelieved the version of the prosecutrix are not at all sound. The findings recorded by the trial court rebel against realism and lose their sanctity and credibility. The court Jost sight of the fact that the proseculrix is a village girl. She was student of Xlh Class. It was wholly irrelevant and immaterial whether she was ignorant of the difference between a Fiat, an Ambassador or a Master car. Again, the statement of the prosecutrix at the trial that she did not remember the colour of the car, though she had given the colour of the car in the FIR was of no material effect on the reliability of her testimony. No fault could also be found with the prosecution version on the ground that the prosecutrix had not raised an alarm while being abducted. The prosecutrix in her statement categorically asserted that as soon as she was pushed inside the car she was threatened by the accused to keep quiet and not to raise any alarm otherwise she would be killed. Under these circumstances to discredit the prosecutrix for not raising an alarm while the car was passing through the Bus Adda is traversity of justice. The court over-looked the situation in which a poor helpless minor girl had found herself in the company of three desperate young men who were threatening her and preventing her from raising any alarm. Again, if the investigating officer did not conduct the investigation properly or was negligent in not being able to trace out the driver or the car, how can that become a ground to discredit the testimony of the prosecutrix? The prosecutrix had no control over the investigating agency and the negligence of an investigating officer could not affect the credibility of the statement of the prosecutrix. Trial Court fell in error for discrediting the testimony of the prosecutrix on that account. In our opinion, there was no delay in the lodging of the FIR either and if at al! there was some delay, the same has not only been properly explained ' H by the prosecution but in the facts and circumstances of the case was also ' 1 ' • • • • _ .. STATE v. GURMIT SINGH [DR. ANAND, J.] 543 natural. The courts cannot over-look the fact that in sexual offences delay in A the lodging of the FIR can be due to variety of reasons particularly the reluctance of the prosecutrix or her family members to go to the police and complain about the incident which concerns the reputation of the prosecutrix and the honour of her family. It is only after giving it a cool thought that a complaint of sexual offence is generally lodged. The prosecution has exB plained that as soon as Trilok Singh PW 6, father of the prosecutrix came to know from his wife, PW 7 about the incident he went to the· village sarpanch and complained to him. The sarpanch of the village also got in touch with the sarpanch of village Pakhowal, where in the tube well kotha of Ranjit Singh rape was committed, and an effort was made by the panchayats of the two c villages to sit together and settle the matter. It was only when the Panchayats failed to provide any relief or render any justice to the prosecutrix, that she and her family decided to report the matter to the police and before doing that naturally the father and mother of the prosecutrix discussed whether or not to lodge a report with the police in view of the repercussions it might have on the reputation and future prospects of the marriage etc. of their daughter. Trilok D Singh PW 6 truthfully admitted that he entered into consultation with his wife as to whether to lodge a report or not and the trial court appears to have misunderstood the reasons aild justification for the consultation between Trilok Singh and his wife wh_en it found that the said circumstance had rendered the version of the prosecutrix doubtful. Her statement about the E manner in which she was abducted and again left near the school in the early hours of next morning has a ring of truth. It appears that the trial court searched for contradictions and variations in the statement of the prosecutrix microscopically, so as to disbelieve her version. The observations of the trial court that the story of the prosecutrix that she was left near the examination F centre next morning at about 6 a.m. was "not believable" as the accused would be the last persons to extend sympathy to the prosecutrix" are not at all intelligible. The accused were not showing "any sympathy" to the prosecutrix while driving her at 6.00 a.m. next morning tc the place from where she had been abducted but on the other hand were removing her from the kotha of G Ranjit Singh and leaving her near the examination centre so as to avoid being detected. The criticism by the trial court of the evidence of the prosecutrix as to why she did not complain to the lady teachers or to other girl students when she appeared for the examination at the centre and waited till she went home and narrated the occurrence to her mother is unjustified. The conduct of the prosecutrix in this regard appears to us to be most natural. The trial court overH A B c D E 544 SI IPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] I S.C.R. looked that a girl, in a tradition bound non-permissive society in India, would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any incident. which is likely to reflect upon her chastity had occurre.d, being conscious of the oanger of being ostracized by the society or being looked down by the cociety. Her not informing the teachers or her friends at the examination ~entre under the circumstances cannot detract from her reliability. In the normal course of huma.1 conduct, this unmarried minor girl, would not like to give publicity to the traumatic exporience she had undergone and would feel terribly embarrassed in relation to the incident to narrate it to her teachers and others overpowered by a feeling of shame and he1 natural inclination would be to avoiJ talking about it to any r,e, lest the family name and honour is brought into controversy. Therefore her informing to her mother only on return to the parental house and no one else at the examination centre prio. thereto is an accord with the naturaJ human